Good day to you, Ms. Flis, Mr. Stewart-Patterson and to all of your associates.
When you or other witnesses tell us that Bill C-2 isn't perfect, the Conservatives seem to be rather insulted, because they were convinced that this bill was a perfect as the ten commandments. When you say that we need to take time to ensure that we have a sound piece of legislation, we agree entirely with you. However, both the NDP and the Conservatives accuse us of employing stalling tactics.
Ms. Jennings was commenting on the fact that between 1988 and 2000, a total of 14 bills introduced contained over 300 clauses. The average time required to examine these bills was 200 days. Today, we're being asked to deal with this bill in about 40 days. What's worse, there is no possibility of even reviewing the act. We have proposed an amendment which we hope will be approved. The government is so confident of having produced a perfect bill that it did not even include a provision requiring a review in five or seven years' time. I think that's a dangerous direction to take. I hope that our Conservative colleagues will, at the very least, be willing to hear our views on requiring a review every five years.
I'd like to follow up on Ms. Jennings' earlier comments. You mentioned the Sarbanes-Oxley Act adopted in the United States in 2002. Other countries have enacted accountability legislation. Suppose we were to do a survey today that put the level of trust of the Canadian public at “x”. To determine whether or not the act has achieved its stated aims, that is whether it has restored the public's trust, we would need to do another survey two or three years down the road.
Has the U.S. legislation achieved its stated objectives? Do Americans now claim to be satisfied and to trust Mr. Bush and his government?